Though it's certainly cynical to believe that both political parties just take all our taxes, and then some, to pay off their own individual constituencies, it’s worth at least considering that at least when the Republicans are in power and cut taxes for the wealthy and funnel billions to the military that the country at least benefits economically by creating new jobs, higher GDP, more rich people plus arguably slight economic improvements over time for the middle and lower classes. But when the Democrats are in power and raise taxes and funnel billions to their constituency of unions, public employees, the educational system, politically correct scientists and the downtrodden, both real and imagined, the economy stagnates and no one does any better economically except those with a government job or those receiving grants, subsidies or stipends of some nature from Uncle Sam. I think it was H.L. Mencken who touched eruditiously on this antinomy when he said,* ‘Democracy is an exercise in pillage and each election is a referendum on future stolen property.’ The antinomy being that from a flawed system driven by a ostensibly single underlying, corrupting, political process, the greater economic common good is better served by the one party favoring self-interest and the more productive elite minority.
Voting for Democrats is, at least in respect to America’s economy, quite simply throwing out the good in pursuit of the perfect - the practical for the ideal. Americans seem to have a terrible time these days accepting that timeless colloquial maxim, that everything in politics is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Sorry guys, but just because you don’t like either Party very well, you still gotta choose. So you might as well be practical and choose the one that at least has a vague recollection how to balance a checkbook, has the 'immoral' constitution necessary to terminate an underperforming employee and knows how to create something other than a government job.
Politicians who believe they can 'fix everything' historically and inevitably do more damage than good. This widespread belief that America is broken and needs to be overhauled is dangerous. We’d all be a lot better off if our leaders and our citizenry were content with making small improvements over time. I apologize for raining on many of the idealistic Obamanista’s parades out there, but as far as our economy is concerned, trickle down is better than nothing and there is no 'third way'.
*I very well might be the first person in human history to use those two words together in the same sentence.
M.D.T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Amongst the silent crowd, I dare to raise my hand and seek to be recognized by the speaker on the platform and now venture a comment. Yes, you have a point that is confirmed, by economics, regarding the effect of spending on the economy. The myth of Keynesian spending is that all you need to do is prime the pump and the engine starts and it doesn't really matter how you distribute the stolen wealth (read: taxes), because it just goes into the economy and every dollar that gets spread around does as much as good as any other dollar spent on anything else. (Hence, paying off my friends who put me in power is a social good -- yeah, Right). Well, what are you putting in the engine to start it? Castor Oil? Old Bourbon? High Grade Octane? Any engine recognizes bad fuel. There is a difference between spending money on building bridges to nowhere, transfer payments to Union Bosses or, for that matter, outright crooks. There is, and always will be, a multiplier effect to money. If I give ten bucks to a crack head to go buy a rock off the street (I am only guessing that is the right price), that ill spent ten bucks does not go very far -- and leave aside notions of "social good" for the sake of this discussion. Eventually this ten bucks might get turned into twinkies or a ham sandwich down the line and benefit someone who makes an honest living. But the difference between that ten bucks and the ten bucks invested in a brand new shiny military aircraft -- let's just say a Raptor for the fun of it -- is more than huge. The Raptor is full of wonderful electronic gizmos, there are tens of thousands of people responsible for that product, and everyone from janitors on the factory floor, to programming geeks, to press operators to engineers to highly trained scientists, benefit. Now, I ask you which is the better ten bucks. You may falsely say neither because you do not consume crack cocaine - and you will probably never fly in a Raptor. And oh, yes, I am discounting the fact that the Raptor keeps your ass free as a "social good" - because again I am only counting the numbers. There is no question that ten bucks spent on military hardware does far more good than ten bucks spent on anything to make you otherwise feel good or bring you self esteem (such as studying the dating habits of coeds, or remodeling a college lounge, or investigating fish neurology - and these are all examples of recent "stimulis" grants). Thus, it isn't just a question of spending money - it is always a question of how far money goes. Ask anybody trying to live day-to-day and budget for their family. It doesn't seem like money does go very far nowadays, does it? Gee, I wonder why that could be.
ReplyDelete